3 ms·

Of course it isn't. The issue is that the majority of fear against nuclear comes from nuclear weapons and improper management. People have erroneously thought t

Of course it isn't. The issue is that the majority of fear against nuclear comes from nuclear weapons and improper management. People have erroneously thought that nuclear power technology is similar to nuclear weapon technology when they meltdown. The reality is that a meltdown isn't even close to a nuclear chain reaction. Chernobyl was an example of poor management and Fukushima was an example of poor design. These failures were not do to nuclear material. Nuclear material is obviously dangerous when used improperly. The fear of 'fallout' has stunted the growth of a superior technology. I believe we would have made a far more significant change to C02 output if society had invested money and effort into nuclear technology instead of renewable technology. Not that I'm anti-renewable but, MSR and other nuclear technologies have the potential to be far more reliable, cost effective, and environmentally beneficial in the long run.

pvorb 6y ago
> The issue is that the majority of fear against nuclear comes from nuclear weapons and improper management. But aren't these valid sources of fear? War is still a thing and Uranium enrichment can be used for both nuclear power plants as well as nuclear weapons. Improper management is something that is hard to control. Usually the people who live nearby a nuclear power plant have absolutely no insight into how the plant is managed. So why should they be confident in everything being fine. Human error is inevitable and has led to numerous accidents. Why shouldn't this happen again?
- Meandering 6y ago
  Absolutely, healthy fear is beyond valid. It's the fear from ignorance that I was referencing. A nuclear meltdown is not an explosion. It's literal a meltdown where the material burns through containment... there is no explosion. The fear of nuclear has prevented investment which could of resulted in far safer technologies entering the market. Technologies like Molten Salt Reactors that have passive meltdown protection[1] and thorium reactors[2] which utilized a material that can't be weaponized through enrichment. A passive safety feature in the Fukushima plant could have prevented that catastrophe. People have a right to not approve of nuclear. I'm only saying that the technology is heavily repressed due to an uneducated public. The truth is that renewable energy will never be as cost effective as gas or oil for base load energy. Nuclear is a clear and viable option for the energy portfolio. It's a shame to see a completely valid option ignored because of unchecked fear. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

pvorb 6y ago

> The issue is that the majority of fear against nuclear comes from nuclear weapons and improper management. But aren't these valid sources of fear? War is still a thing and Uranium enrichment can be used for both nuclear power plants as well as nuclear weapons. Improper management is something that is hard to control. Usually the people who live nearby a nuclear power plant have absolutely no insight into how the plant is managed. So why should they be confident in everything being fine. Human error is inevitable and has led to numerous accidents. Why shouldn't this happen again?

Meandering 6y ago
Absolutely, healthy fear is beyond valid. It's the fear from ignorance that I was referencing. A nuclear meltdown is not an explosion. It's literal a meltdown where the material burns through containment... there is no explosion. The fear of nuclear has prevented investment which could of resulted in far safer technologies entering the market. Technologies like Molten Salt Reactors that have passive meltdown protection[1] and thorium reactors[2] which utilized a material that can't be weaponized through enrichment. A passive safety feature in the Fukushima plant could have prevented that catastrophe. People have a right to not approve of nuclear. I'm only saying that the technology is heavily repressed due to an uneducated public. The truth is that renewable energy will never be as cost effective as gas or oil for base load energy. Nuclear is a clear and viable option for the energy portfolio. It's a shame to see a completely valid option ignored because of unchecked fear. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power